Evaluation of the MicroScan Colistin Well and Gradient Diffusion Strips for Colistin Susceptibility Testing in .

Joseph D Lutgring, Anny Kim, Davina Campbell, Maria Karlsson, Allison C Brown, Eileen M Burd
Author Information
  1. Joseph D Lutgring: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA yix4@cdc.gov.
  2. Anny Kim: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  3. Davina Campbell: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  4. Maria Karlsson: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  5. Allison C Brown: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  6. Eileen M Burd: Department of Pathology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Abstract

Many laboratories are unable to perform colistin susceptibility testing. Diffusion-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods are not recommended, and not all laboratories have the capacity to perform broth microdilution (BMD). Using a multistep tiered approach, we investigated whether the adapted use of the MicroScan colistin well (4 μg/ml) could enhance laboratory capacity for the detection and subsequent molecular characterization of colistin-resistant For the MicroScan colistin well, categorical agreement with BMD was 92.7%, and the very major error rate was 10.7%. For gradient diffusion strips, the categorical agreement was 86.4%, and the very major error rate was 53.6%. The MicroScan colistin well detected all isolates carrying or genes ( = 16), but gradient diffusion strips identified an MIC of ≥4 for colistin for only 62.5% of these isolates. A 6-month prospective phenotypic and genotypic study performed at a single clinical microbiology laboratory assessed isolates growing in the MicroScan colistin well for concordance. While 37 of 39 isolates growing in the MicroScan colistin well displayed a colistin MIC of ≥4 by BMD, all were determined to be negative for the and genes by PCR. A retrospective review of all , spp., and spp. tested by MicroScan at this laboratory in 2016 identified 260 of 7,894 (3.3%) isolates that grew in the MicroScan colistin well. Based on the data presented, clinical and public health laboratories could use the MicroScan colistin well as a first screen for the detection of isolates displaying elevated colistin MICs, which could then undergo further characterization.

Keywords

References

  1. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Oct;58(4):864-7 [PMID: 16905528]
  2. J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Jun;51(6):1678-84 [PMID: 23486719]
  3. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Aug;57(3):349-58 [PMID: 23616495]
  4. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Feb;20(2):O117-23 [PMID: 23992130]
  5. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(3):1684-92 [PMID: 24379201]
  6. Pharmacotherapy. 2015 Jan;35(1):22-7 [PMID: 25329490]
  7. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 15;60(10):1462-71 [PMID: 25670823]
  8. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Feb;16(2):161-8 [PMID: 26603172]
  9. Euro Surveill. 2016 Jul 7;21(27): [PMID: 27416987]
  10. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Dec 6;165(11):812-813 [PMID: 27653291]
  11. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Mar 15;64(6):711-718 [PMID: 27940944]
  12. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017 Apr;30(2):557-596 [PMID: 28275006]
  13. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Aug 1;72(8):2278-2289 [PMID: 28520867]
  14. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Jul 25;61(8): [PMID: 28559252]
  15. J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Sep;55(9):2609-2616 [PMID: 28592552]
  16. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Aug 24;61(9): [PMID: 28652234]
  17. MBio. 2017 Jun 27;8(3): [PMID: 28655818]
  18. J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Sep;55(9):2573-2582 [PMID: 28724555]
  19. Euro Surveill. 2017 Aug 3;22(31):null [PMID: 28797329]
  20. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Nov 22;61(12): [PMID: 28893788]
  21. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Dec 1;72(12):3317-3324 [PMID: 28962028]
  22. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 19;66(7):1061-1067 [PMID: 29099915]
  23. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Jan 24;56(2): [PMID: 29118174]
  24. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;18(3):285-295 [PMID: 29254862]
  25. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Apr 1;73(4):953-961 [PMID: 29377998]
  26. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Apr 25;56(5): [PMID: 29436415]
  27. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;18(4):358-360 [PMID: 29456042]
  28. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;18(4):391-400 [PMID: 29456043]
  29. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 May;91(1):89-92 [PMID: 29456071]
  30. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 May 1;73(5):1272-1278 [PMID: 29481600]
  31. JAMA. 2018 Feb 27;319(8):788-799 [PMID: 29486041]
  32. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Aug 27;56(9): [PMID: 29976595]
  33. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Sep;39(9):1115-1117 [PMID: 30039775]
  34. J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Jan 30;57(2): [PMID: 30282791]
  35. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Feb;93(2):140-142 [PMID: 30355469]
  36. Microb Drug Resist. 2019 Apr 3;:null [PMID: 30942652]

MeSH Term

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Colistin
Diffusion
Enterobacteriaceae
Genes, MDR
Humans
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
Polymyxins
Retrospective Studies

Chemicals

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Polymyxins
Colistin

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0colistinMicroScanwellisolateslaboratoriessusceptibilitytestingBMDlaboratoryperformantimicrobialcapacityusedetectioncharacterizationcategoricalagreement7%majorerrorrategradientdiffusionstripsgenesidentifiedMIC≥4clinicalgrowingsppColistinManyunableDiffusion-basedmethodsrecommendedbrothmicrodilutionUsingmultisteptieredapproachinvestigatedwhetheradapted4 μg/mlenhancesubsequentmolecularcolistin-resistant9210864%536%detectedcarrying = 16625%6-monthprospectivephenotypicgenotypicstudyperformedsinglemicrobiologyassessedconcordance3739displayeddeterminednegativePCRretrospectivereviewtested2016260789433%grewBaseddatapresentedpublichealthfirstscreendisplayingelevatedMICsundergoEvaluationWellGradientDiffusionStripsSusceptibilityTestingASTpolymyxin

Similar Articles

Cited By